Marc Ambinder tells of a last-minute meeting Sunday evening on Afghanistan, which he depicts as a session to get everyone using the same nomenclature and terminology headed into Tuesday’s critical speech to the nation.

But while Ambinder says that the Tuesday speech, expected to announce an order of around 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, says that withdrawals would not be tied to specific benchmarks or conditions from Hamid Karzai, the New York Times takes roughly the same information and builds expectations for an announcement of an exit strategy.

President Obama plans to lay out a time frame for winding down the American involvement in the war in Afghanistan when he announces his decision this week to send more forces, senior administration officials said Sunday [...]

“It’s accurate to say that he will be more explicit about both goals and time frame than has been the case before and than has been part of the public discussion,” said a senior official, who requested anonymity to discuss the speech before it is delivered. “He wants to give a clear sense of both the time frame for action and how the war will eventually wind down.”

The officials would not disclose the time frame. But they said it would not be tied to particular conditions on the ground nor would it be as firm as the current schedule for withdrawing troops in Iraq, where Mr. Obama has committed to withdrawing most combat units by August and all forces by the end of 2011.

Seems like your comfort with this is a matter of degree. If you’re looking for some sense of an exit from a war well into its ninth year, maybe an indistinct target for that end will satisfy you. If you’re looking for a specific timetable, the speech probably won’t.

This curious paragraph suggests that the entire troop decision is part of a game to reassure Pakistan:

Officials of one allied nation who have been extensively briefed on the president’s plan said, however, that Mr. Obama would describe how the American presence would be ratcheted back after the buildup, while making clear that a significant American presence in Afghanistan would remain for a long while. That is designed in part to signal to Pakistan that the United States will not abandon the region and to allay Pakistani fears that India will fill the vacuum created as America pulls back.

Who are they signaling in Pakistan? The government, which is near collapse, with the President having relinquished the nuclear portfolio to the Prime Minister? Or the army and intelligence services, who we want to confront Al Qaeda in their own backyard?

The Washington Post sheds a bit more light on this by revealing a two-page letter from national security adviser James Jones to President Zardari, offering a long-term strategic partnership with military and economic aid, “accompanied by assurances from Jones that the United States will increase its military and civilian efforts in Afghanistan and that it plans no early withdrawal.” In exchange, the letter demands an end to Pakistani relationships with extremist groups inside its borders, not limited to Al Qaeda but also the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba.

More to the point of this, why in the world are we involved in any way with a regional power play between India and Pakistan, which requires as much of a diplomatic solution as the civil war in Afghanistan, and risking the lives of 30,000 more Americans for that purpose? The distance between finding and capturing the men who perpetrated 9/11 and soothing Pakistan about a regional rival’s potential growth is such a vast gulf that it almost cannot be calculated. And all of this talk of a strategic partnership seems to neglect the plain fact that America is despised in Pakistan and their people want no part of our help. That, and making a deal with a President about to be toppled seems a bit shaky.

Barack Obama will announce this escalation in Afghanistan eight days before picking up his Nobel Peace Prize In Oslo.

34 Responses
to “Obama’s Tuesday Speech To Have A Non-Exit, Non-Strategic Exit Strategy”

“Talk of an exit strategy is exactly the wrong way to go,” said Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican. “I certainly hope the president doesn’t do that, because all that does is signal to the enemies and also to our allies, to the folks in Pakistan as well as the Afghanis, that we’re not there to stay until the mission is accomplished.” He spoke on “Fox News Sunday.”

Pakistani elites are obsessed with the memory of American abandonment after the Cold War. We pushed them into fighting a major war against Afghanistan’s Soviet occupiers, and then, when the Soviets left, we left too, leaving Pakistan to deal with the wreckage. Now, once again, we’ve pushed them into war: demanding that they send their army to fight the Pakistani Taliban in the badlands of South Waziristan. If Obama tells Pakistanis that—troop surge notwithstanding—we’re getting ready to leave, they’re less likely to continue the fight. Why provoke the Taliban if you’re going to have to face them alone?

What is rarely if ever discussed regarding the American “mission” in Afghanistan is the mission of American foreign policy itself. And it is certainly not the pursuit of ideals like democracy, freedom and himan rights. Instead, it revolves around sustaining as favorable a business climate for Wall Street in the global economy as possible.

Afghanisstan is no exception.

From the website The Debate 11/30/09:

IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF OIL PIPELINE

America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government’s foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:

“The U.S. Government’s position is that we support multiple pipelines…
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project.”

[ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]

“The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across,
Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges.”

[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]

“CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized
Afghanistan Government is in place.”
[ "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]

george:

Or this from the website Truthout:
Nick Mottern 10/22/09

Less well known in the US is that Central Asia, that includes Kazakhstan, Uzebekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, holds substantial oil, gas and hydroelectric resources that are viewed as critical over the course of this century to the economic success of Europe, Russia, China, India and the US. For example, Turkmenistan has the fourth largest natural gas reserves after Russia, Iran and the US, and Kazakhstan may have oil reserves equal to those in Iraq. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have a great potential for expanding hydroelectric power; by one estimate, Tajikistan can eventually generate nearly the same amount of hydroelectricity as India does today.

Or from the website webdiary:

Colin Miller:

Initially the Taliban enjoyed the support of Bill Clinton’s administration for a campaign against Iran, but the most strategically important goal was to secure the region’s oil and gas. In 1996-98 the US government supported the (US) Unocal oil company’s plans for a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan.

What was support (or indifference) toward the Taliban in the Clinton years, has turned to antagonism and a goal of elimination, whatever the cost, today. So many near neighbours have meddled in Afghanistan’s affairs over decades – notably Pakistan and Russia, and to a lesser degree Iran and Saudi Arabia – that the region has rarely been free of conflict. And never more so than now, with the resurgent Taliban being fought vigorously with the stakes raised to dizzying heights in the interests of oil, and oil interests.

Prior to September 11, United States’ policy toward the Taliban was largely influenced by oil. In their book, Ben Laden, la verite interdite, 2002, (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), former French intelligence officer Jean-Charles Brisard and journalist Guillaume Dasquie document the “oil” connection between George W. Bush and the Taliban.

The United States’ dependence on Middle East, and soon Central Asian, oil and gas has led the US government to intervene militarily under a variety of pretexts, which change to suit the domestic political mood at any given time. The development of a coherent U.S. energy policy would obviate the real (or perceived) need to dominate other countries.

According to wiki: The Norwegian Nobel Committee speculates that Nobel may have considered Norway better suited to awarding the prize as it did not have the same militaristic traditions as Sweden.
BTW, I forgot to ask downstairs, how’s your cold?

‘More to the point of this, why in the world are we involved in any way with a regional power play between India and Pakistan, which requires as much of a diplomatic solution as the civil war in Afghanistan, and risking the lives of 30,000 more Americans for that purpose?’

Would follow the money apply this question? Defense contracts, technology?

Cold is still with me, but I’m not as congested today, so hopefully it’s on the wane. My hunter friend is gonna pick up a few items at the store for me today. Gives me a warm & fuzzy feeling that someone is looking after me for a change. Thanks for asking.

I read somewhere last week that half a million troops were used to “liberate” Quwait. What the hell do they expect 30,000 troops to accomplish in this hell-hole? The hearts and minds strategy is bullshit. I wish Mr. Transparency would start giving a rat’s ass about the hearts and minds [and health] of the American people.

I tend to agree with Michael Moores open letter to the president this morning. Get the hell out of Afganistan and quit blowning life and treasure on a no-winable war. The only persons who put a price on human life, IMO, are gangsters. They appear in every society in every country in the world. Politicans are the worst of this breed. Money and power are their only god. They preted to know what reason and empathy is but really haven’t a clue. I voted for our president for most of the reasons Mr. Moore mentioned in his letter. Now. Hmmmm

I keep reading that people who don’t cut obama some slack are just negative; that he has only been in office for less than a year and it takes time to undo the problems brought on by w. Well, I would be willing to give him the slack if he were in fact leading. So far, everything has gone the way of the big corps, just as under w, with obama appointing his advisors out of the same group that is looting the treasury. The few times that he has lifted his head to do something positive, he is reminded that it (whatever “it” is) is not done that way so he quickly retreats and things are back to “normal.” I am negative about him and his admin. I will try to be positive when I see something positive. Meanwhile, I hear that we are still fighting in Eastasia, or is it Eurasia?

Re the Obama surge, it is important to emphasize that we are talking a year to deploy and 18 to 24 months to operate so we are looking at a minimum of 2 1/2 to 3 more years before we even begin to consider pulling back. The end part of this timeframe would be in 2012, an election year, so it would almost certainly put any decision on a draw down into 2013.

I am not sure why the multi-year nature of this surge has not been more widely discussed.

I remember when Ike campaigned against Stevenson about going to Korea and bringing the troops home. Well what do know, after the election he brought the troops home. A lot of flag draped caskets have been driven down main street since then. Back in the day we’d stop and remove our hats when they passed by, today, not so much. And whose to blame? The young warriors sent off to fight, or the generals that command them to battle, or the politicians that promote the generals, or does the blame lie with us for electing the politicians?

Is anyone else but me tired of ‘fixing’ the screwups the Brits made in their colonial/empire days? Especially since we aren’t ‘fixing’ anything but just shoving more money at those who profit by war and killing those we refuse to acknowledge the humanity of?